Borneman's Reefkeeping Magazine article

[spawner]

Not to cut in to Mitch's questions,

Peter,

First, I would agree that there are exaggerations in Eric's paper. However, let's try to clarify whether the numbers with which one disagrees are ones created by Eric or by someone else (numbers taken from another paper).

Hum, shouldn't a PhD be held responsiable for the numbers in a paper. I mean don't you have to use your noise a bit to sniff out the stinkers. Citations don't exuse bad data in a paper, in fact they merely inflame bad data. When I am writting papers I general try to read the paper I am citing and decide if the data smells ok.

Isn't this how the idea of using expolsive to collect marine ornamentals got started and spread around. You can read that in several peer reviewed published papers, one or two might even have my name on it , after enough time it because a fact, true or not.

The comment about enlarging numbers, making things seem worse then they are is all too commonly occuring in grants, papers and reports. The peer review process seems to have take a noise dive in some journals depending on who the authors are of course. Grants, can be more about who you are than what you know or how the idea is presented. Ah, we are just like the rest of the world after all, but with larger egos.

 

[sdcfish]

Peter,

As Dizzy clearly pointed out to us all as I have read the comment many times that you wrote about 50% of the fish dying from boat to exporter.....

I have always asked myself:

Why did you not make mention of the Region of your comment? I always found the comment very misleading as there are so many countries that export aquarium fish that would rarely be the case except for some random incident. "All marine species captured for the trade", I am sure you didn't mean places like Hawaii, Fiji, Tonga, Solomons, Vanuatu, etc.....I think you get my point. You should have clearly pointed out the region and instance you came across this obscure percentage.

It's statements like this and so many more alike in Borneman's article that hurt the industry unfairly, misinform the people who care, and unjustly hurt the thousands of people who work so hard to better the Industry for times to come.

I agree with Fish Dave's, Cortez's and some other previous comments.
Dave makes most of the same points I felt when reading the Borneman Article.

I have written a private message to Eric Borneman pointing out my frustrations in hopes of more accurate representations on future articles.

Best regards

Eric

104th Street Wholesaler

 

[clarionreef]

Erics so right.
Imagine if 10% of Hawaii, Fiji, Tonga, Solomons, Vanuatu, Australia and the Marshalls came in DOA . There would be hell to pay. We would be furious ....it would be held as unacceptable and no one would sweep it under any rugs.
We would self correct right away and long before any outside "researcher" suggested a calculated waste of marinelife was OK by us!
There have been few forums as point blank as this one and from what I've seen the only people avoiding answers to frank and direct questions have been the groups seeking to feed off the gross that we create.
We answer questions point blank here all the time....so whats with the parroting of 7 year anectodal gossip as evidence?
Anyone want to know something....let er rip.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

Here is another EB quote I find interesting: "Unfortunately, the massive increases in the harvest of Pacific live rock resulting from the Florida ban have dropped retail prices from around U.S. $10/pound to around U.S. $2-3/pound. Wholesale prices hover around U.S. $1.50/pound, making it very difficult for aquaculture facilities of live rock to compete in the marketplace."

I don't know any stores around here selling live rock for $2 a pound. Someone needs to explain that in addition to the cost of the rock there is freight and breakage during shipping. Plus you pay for the weight of the shipping box. So if you buy 50# you might end up with 45 to sell. Do the math.
Mitch
PS
Plus the Florida cultured stuff is pretty crappy by comparison.

 

[danieldm]

The retail live rock price around my neck of the woods is no where near Eric's claim of $2-3/ pound. As a matter of fact, I just checked the stock list for one of the Bay Area wholesalers and their rock was in the $2-3/pound range at the wholesale price.

 

[Anonymous]

The retail live rock price around my neck of the woods is no where near Eric's claim of $2-3/ pound. As a matter of fact, I just checked the stock list for one of the Bay Area wholesalers and their rock was in the $2-3/pound range at the wholesale price.

7.50/pound in greensboro and 14-21/pound in charlotte. Maybe he was talking about Mail Order before shipping... 8O

 

[Kalkbreath]

There is little to back up such a claim of 30% increase in Hobbyists.
Tank sales are actually down. Oceanic / All Glass
Imports from the Philippines are fifty percent less today then ten years ago . (5 million compared to 12 )
CITES has limited coral imports by one third over the past ten years.
Exports from Hawai are down fifty percent.
If we are to use Eric's Fiji live rock and coral numbers from Eight years ago........there has been a ten fold decrease in todays imports from that island.
In order to supply this supposed 30% increase in hobbyists, there would need to be a coresponding 30% increase in the supply of live stock landing into the States for these new hobbyists to fill their tanks.
Wholesalers would have noticed the doubling every three years in the demand for live stock. (Most are downsizing not expanding)
The supply of marine life coming into the USA is about the same today as it was six years ago. The make up and diversity of species has changed, but the total peices landing is about the same .
If the population of US Hobbyists had tripled since 1999, The industry would have responded in kind.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Hey Steve, have you noticed a tripling of your orders in the last six to seven years? Hell, I actually think the market is shrinking.
Name one wholesaler who has increased sales over the last three years?

 

[naesco]

So because some of the data is 'old' does that mean it is wrong.

Have there been improvements in how industry catches and shipes fish? NO
Has there been a reduction on industry's use of cyanide NO
Has industry organized itself to make their industry sustainable. NO

The fact is that industry has done nothing since Mary Middlebrook exposed their dirty little secret, cyanide

That gentleman is why there is nothing wrong with Eric's data. He knows the inner workings of industry and knows there has been no improvement.

Have you got any recent statistics to back up your claim that he is wrong?

 

[danieldm]

So because some of the data is 'old' does that mean it is wrong.

Have you got any recent statistics to back up your claim that he is wrong?

Wayne, no it doesn't mean that it is wrong. What it does mean is that it is unreliable. I have done many Return On Investment (ROI) analysis, and from a statistical reliablity perspective this isn't very reliable data. Eric's data may in fact be realistic for today's ornamental industry. But due to it's age, there is no way of knowing.

I quickly reread the posts in the thread, and I didn't see much disagreement with what Eric was saying...the industry has some serious problems that need to be corrected. I think every one would agree to that. What people were disagreeing with were Eric's reported numbers.

For example, the 2002 paper Eric cites says that at least 50,000 Bangaii fish are collected each month. His article also states that the industry is growing by 30% annually. Using these two bits of info would mean that the industry today is collecting 142,805 Bangaii's each month...or 1,713,660 annually.

If this was the most recent data that Eric could find to use in his article, then he should have made a disclaimer of some sort regarding his numbers.

No, I don't have any recent statistics to prove that he is wrong, and that wasn't my point. My point was that most of his data is statistically unreliable due to the age.

 

[clarionreef]

Kalk,
The growth stuff is junk info...a legend that may turn to myth with enough re-telling.
When junk facts get old enough, they become more acceptable and futher from reality.
I wish it were true in fact....but alas...it is not.
The sinister explanation is however, a purposeful falsification to enhance alarm over the 'growing crisis'. Its basic public relations.

Wayne;
Have there been improvements in how industry catches and ships fish? Yes, in fact. Huge improvements as importers take more responsiblity to help in the field and the shipping facilities. Several dealers maintain staff that travel abroad several times a year to effect improvements in collecting, handling and shipping.

Has there been a reduction on industry's use of cyanide
Yes....as one municipality after another bans it and makes it dangerous to use. Several hundred collectors that have been to jail this past year disagree with you.

Has industry organized itself to make their industry sustainable.
But..they don't need to. They have reform groups to whitewash things for them now. This has lessened pressure for reform and been counterproductive. You may better ask if the reform groups have organized themselves and co-operated to make the industry more sustainable. Oh yes. They get paid to camp-follow us and our gross. They are part of the industry now and are becoming in fact...pro-industry.
By the way Wayne. Hows the fellow reformers at MAC relating to you lately?
Steve

 

[dizzy]

I have to say the whole 20 plus years I've been in the industry I don't think i've seen 49 different species of shrimp offered for sale. Heavily traded? I guess whomever was in the large un-named LA wholesaler getting the invertebrate stats also saw the 5000 bangaii cardinals. :roll: I must be going to LA the wrong time of year, because I ain't seeing that kind of variety when I get to make the rounds. If the wholesaler who has all that stuff is out there lurking, please send me an availability list. Thanks Mitch

More Eric
"A recent article examined the trade in ornamental crustaceans. The authors identified 128 heavily traded species: 49 species of caridean shrimp (15 from the family Hippolytidae), 32 species of anomuran crabs, 27 species of brachyuran crabs, 7 stenopodidean shrimp, 7 astacidean lobsters and 6 panulirid lobsters. Culture of the crustaceans is impeded by long and sometimes complex larval development and low commercial value of some species. Ecological impacts from the high rates of collections of hermit and Mithrax crabs from tidal areas, cleaner shrimps, and Hymenocera picta as a predator of coral eating crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) are seen as an area of serious concern (Calado, et al., 2003). Unfortunately, data on trade in the myriad of other invertebrate species are virtually nonexistent and/or unpublished.

Summary of Other Invertebrate Species for Trade at a large Los Angeles Wholesaler:

Anemones -


17 separate described items of unknown numbers, mostly unclassified; 8 listed genera; errors in classification exist, with names describing the same or many different species. One item was listed as the soft coral, Litophyton sp.
Cephalopods -

5 separate described items of unknown numbers, mostly unclassified; a single genus listed.
Crabs -

35 separate described items of unknown numbers; 9 genera listed, mostly unclassified.
Cucumbers -

11 separate described items of unknown numbers; 6 genera listed, mostly unclassified
Feather Dusters -

11 separate described items of unknown numbers; 3 genera listed, mostly unclassified
Jellyfish - 2 described items of unknown numbers; 1 genus listed, unclassified
Lobsters -

10 separate described items of unknown numbers; 3 genera listed, mostly unclassified
Nudibranchs -

12 separate described items of unknown numbers; 2 genera listed, mostly unclassified
Bivalves -


7 separate Tridacna spp., including wild-caught listed from Tonga and the Philippines, 2 uncategorized mussels, 2 oysters (1 with genus listed), 4 scallops (2 genera listed, improperly classified)
Snails -

17 separate described items of unknown numbers; 5 genera listed, mostly unclassified
Shrimp -

26 separate described items of unknown numbers; 9 genera listed, mostly unclassified
Sponges - 9 separate described items of unknown numbers, completely unclassified
"Squirts" - 3 separate described items of unknown numbers, completely unclassified
Sea Stars -

33 separate items, 9 genera listed, mostly unclassified. Interestingly, the sea star Acanthaster planci is listed as an ornamental species for sale.
Urchins - 16 separate items, 8 genera listed, mostly unclassified
"Plants" - 19 listings of algae, 7 genera listed, mostly unidentified

 

[spawner]

Mitch

More Eric
"A recent article examined the trade in ornamental crustaceans. The authors identified 128 heavily traded species: 49 species of caridean shrimp (15 from the family Hippolytidae), 32 species of anomuran crabs, 27 species of brachyuran crabs, 7 stenopodidean shrimp, 7 astacidean lobsters and 6 panulirid lobsters. Culture of the crustaceans is impeded by long and sometimes complex larval development and low commercial value of some species. Ecological impacts from the high rates of collections of hermit and Mithrax crabs from tidal areas, cleaner shrimps, and Hymenocera picta as a predator of coral eating crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) are seen as an area of serious concern (Calado, et al., 2003). Unfortunately, data on trade in the myriad of other invertebrate species are virtually nonexistent and/or unpublished.

Eric is using mine and Ricardo's data here. Yes that how many cardiean shrimps there are out for sale in a give period of time (2003). Doesn't mean the entire list of speices is for sale at all times. These number have grown; I would bet their are well over 50 species or more now traded. We even left out Saron on the list, that's another 5-8 speices. If you call Stenopus a shrimp, well their is another 5-8 species more again. I bet you I can get close to 100 different species if we really looked.

 

[dizzy]

Andy,
Eric suggests these species are "heavily traded". I don't see how anyone can honestly say 49 species of ornamental shrimp are heavily traded.
Mitch

 

[PeterIMA]

Eric, My original article (where the 50% killed on the reef estimate was given) pertained to the use of cyanide in the Philippines. I guess you never read the article. Since, the majority of marine fishes come from either the Philippines and Indonesia where cyanide is widely used, I see no reason to amend that estimate. References to other countries in irrelevant and a red herring.

By the way, how many MAC Certified fish did you get this month? And what is your present relationship with CCIF?

Peter Rubec

 

[spawner]

Mitch,

You are correct. The text in the papers clearly states "A list of 128 of the most heavily traded marine ornamental decapod crustacean species is tabulated" Here we were using the most to say that we were sure to miss some species that are collected and sold. Perhaps we should have used "most commonly"

Are you suggesting this omission was intentional?

 

[dizzy]

Mitch,

You are correct. The text in the papers clearly states "A list of 128 of the most heavily traded marine ornamental decapod crustacean species is tabulated" Here we were using the most to say that we were sure to miss some species that are collected and sold. Perhaps we should have used "most commonly"

Are you suggesting this omission was intentional?[/quote]

Andy,
Not at all since I never saw the original. What I am suggesting is that Eric is trying to suggest that a lot more trade in rare and unidentified species is taking place than may actually be the case. The wholesalers could provide better info here. I will further develop this point later by using more of his article. FYI we generally sell Lysmata ambiosis (scarlet cleaner), Lysmata wurdemanni (peppermint shrimp)(possibly more than one species) some Stenopus (coral banded including the gold and purple variations) Lysmata debelius (blood red). We sell more L. amboinensis than anything. The blood reds are too pricey to sell many, and the peppermints are fairly plain. If they weren't touted for aptasia control they would difficult to move. We only sell around 10 L. amboinensis per week. I keep wondering how people not in the industry will interpret the
article. I'm not aware of many more species of shrimp that are easily obtainable and commercially attractive. Maybe I misunderstood the use of the term heavily traded. I thought it meant a lot were being collected and sold. What does it mean?
Mitch

PS
Isn't it interesting how the omission of a single word like most can completely change the meaning of the statement. I like to see some numbers on the trade of each species.

 

[spawner]

Mitch,

When the words "heavily traded" is used it seems to mean a lot of them. Our intent was to say here is a sample of the "most heavilly trade"; as in here is a list of the most heavily traded decapods. When this is turned around in a paper and quoted as "heavily traded" it loses its correct meaning. By far the most heavily traded shrimp are peppermints, 10/1 easy from other Lysmata; numbers collected are in the 100Ks in a year. Imports of the cleaners suggest 10Ks per year.

Our intent in with the paper was to open the eyes of researchers that focus on larval development and ecological roles of decapods to the number (number; meaning number of different species) traded and that some are likely over collected and many are unknown. I can see how someone would take the term "most heavily trade" and spin it to turn that into a large number of them are being traded. It is only true for a % of the species of decapods out of the 100s of species that are collected and sold.

I'll get you a copy of the paper.

MARINE ORNAMENTAL DECAPODS—Popular, Pricey, And Poorly Studied

Abstract:
The growing demand for highly priced marine ornamental species has contributed to the endangered status of coral reefs. A list of 128 of the most heavily traded marine ornamental decapod crustacean species is tabulated. The development of commercial culture techniques, the knowledge of the larval development, and the association with vertebrate and invertebrate organisms are presented for these species. Forty-nine of the species are caridean shrimp, with the Hippolytidae family alone accounting for 15. Anomuran and brachyuran crabs are the next most traded groups (32 and 27 species, respectively), with the pricey stenopodidean shrimp, Astacidea, and Palinura lobsters being represented by a considerably lower number of species (7, 7 and 6, respectively). The main bottlenecks impairing the commercial culture of ornamental shrimp and lobsters are their long larval development and poor survival rates. The main constraint for the development of culture techniques for hermit and brachyuran crabs is their low commercial value. The ecological impacts of harvesting ornamental species are still poorly studied. Nevertheless, the collection in considerable numbers of hermit and small majid crabs (e.g., Clibanarius and Mithraculus) from tidal areas, fish cleaning shrimp (e.g., Lysmata and Stenopus), and the crown-of-thorns sea star eaters Hymenocera, is likely to have serious impacts on the ecosystem. The cooperation between researchers working on larval biology, population dynamics, ecology, aquaculture, and fisheries is essential to properly manage the collection of marine ornamental decapods.

 

[clarionreef]

First line in it!

The growing demand for highly priced marine ornamental species has contributed to the endangered status of coral reefs.;
Thats really for an audience [ innocent funders ] with no one present who actually knows this stuff. You know, like trying to impress a girlfriend with your French....but you dare not speak like that in front of real Frenchmen!

Habitat damage would contribute to the endangered status of coral reefs to be sure but thats not how cleaner shrimp and peppermints, stenopus and fire shrimp are ever collected.
Goodness me but peppermints are but by-catch to a really destructive [ by a factor of hundreds!] industry of trawlers for shellfish!
Thank goodness fisherfolk were able to find fast growing shrimps to make a living on and get out of grouper, snapper and parrotfishing!

Now if you spoke of the threats by fish collecting to justify alarm and then impugned by association that the far more benign shrimp collecting was the same....
then thats the grand creative liscence that we take umbrage with!. Steve

 

[Anonymous]

I think that Eric has done a good job with his paper, although there are a number of inaccurate statements. Finding accurate information about the aquarium trade is not easy. Given that the Philippines and Indonesia do not compile accurate statistics (because there is no fishery monitoring) it is understandable that there will be disagreements concerning numbers of fishes exported and imported.

As far as Banggai cardinals are concerned, I see no conflict about Eric's stated numbers collected and the numbers estimated as being imported and sold in the U.S.A. There is a huge mortality on Banggai cardinals that is related to the fact that cyanide is used for collection and the fish are stressed during transport back to Bali. Hence, there is a huge mortality. This is documented in some of the "scientific" papers referred to.

In my mind, if it made it into a scientific journal (which these numbers did) then that it is more believable than if some persons in the trade stated it on Reefs.org. Scientists are not as bad as some have claimed. Bashing them is not the answer.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

two mutually exclusive conditions there-you cannot have a good anything from flawed data-not a good job, and not a good paper